click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 47 of about 48 (some duplicates have been removed)
. >> and commissioner sugaya? >> here. >> commissioners, first on your item items proposed for continuance. item 1, case no. 2012.1381t, inclusionary housing updates, it is proposed for continuance december 30 13th, 2012. item 2, 2012.1306tz, review of two ordinances (planning code text amendment and zoning map amendment) that would rezone parcels in the upper market ncd to the upper market nct, planning code and zoning map amendments, proposed for continuance to february 21st, 2013. item 3, case no. 2012.1168c, 793 south van ness avenue, request for conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to january 24th, 2013. items 4a, b and c for case numbers 2009.0 724 d, 2012.0 888 d, and 2009.0 724 v at 2833 through 2835 fillmore street, mandatory discretionary reviews and variance have been withdrawn. further on your -- under your regular calendar, commissioners, item 15, case no. 2012.1 183 t and z, the amendments to planning code to establish the fillmore street ncd, there is a request from the sponsor and supervisor to continue to december 13th, 2012. and that's all i have. >> okay. is there
. >> commissioner wu. >> here. >> commissioner antonini. >> here. >> commissioner borden. >> commissioner sugaya. >> here. >> first is item one case at 1865 post street request for conditional use authorization is being proposed for continuance to february seven, 2013 at the request of the project sponsor requesting a further continuance than shown on the calendar. item two at 601 van ness avenue continual use continuance is requested. further under the regular calendar there is another request for item 15 at 2895 san bruno avenue request for continuance. that's all i have is there any public comment on the items proposed for continuance? seeing none. commissioner antonini. >> move to move items one and two to the date proposed and item 15 to january 17, 2013. >> second. >> >> on that motion to continue commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner wu. >> commissioner fong. >> aye. >> that passes seven to zero will will place you under the consent calendar. all items constitute the consent calendar considered routine by the pla
think there are some additional comment. commissioner sugaya. >> yes. i would like to have the commission give consideration to perhaps inserting the january thursday, but substituting another thursday somewhere in that long string of meetings that we have in between february and may and that could be the end of march for example or something like that just to give us a break in there. >> we always have the ability of scheduling more meetings and canceling them or postponing -- >> yeah, it's probably easier to cancel meetings than reschedule them. >> right. >> because we just send out a cancellation notice and that's it. >> but if it's on the schedule the staff is going to go ahead and start scheduling things for it so that's the problem. >> well, if we know well in advance, yes. >> commissioner wu. >> i could supportive of the desire to add in the 31st on january and then maybe take off the last of march. to respond to commissioner antonini i think it's important to take the planning commission appointment serious but also it limits who can be on the planning commission.
and second to not take dr -- i'm sorry. >> i'm sorry. commissioner sugaya. >> thank you. in contrast to commissioner moore, i can't help but think when this was laid out that those little wedge shape pieces may not totally have been intentionally placed there, but they were there because of the way the buildings were designed and laid out and the way the streets curve. and, therefore, they were kind of left over spaces where buildings didn't naturally fit. but, on the other hand, right in a row with each other up the hill. so, maybe there was some conscious planning going on at that time. and whether or not there are tons of open space on top of the hill, this is a completely different kind of open space situation. and i think that, you know, the more we try to completely infill every piece of land in the city that we have, you know, the less and less i think it becomes livable. and quite in contrast to whoever testified that families only want recreation space and they did not mention open space is a very telling kind of survey to me. if that's the situation, then this city is in sa
is closed. and opening up to commissioners, with comments and questions, commissioner sugaya? >> just on the privacy issue, i don't think people stand around on decks to look into bedroom windows. i'm sorry. i live in a condo, across the street from me, there are bedroom windows. you know, i don't think people in my condo building stand there and try to look in other people's windows. i suppose if you are having coffee or having a drink or something, you know, you might glance around and there is that kind of thing, but i don't think that most people on these kinds of decks. this is a family. it's like -- it's just not going to happen. i don't consider that to be an extraordinary circumstance. >> commissioner antonini? >> i would agree with commissioner sugaya. i know in "rear window," there this was a lot of that activity in that building being a hitchcock movie. this is different, because the people on the decks would have to turn, instead of looking at the garden and green space, actually look back to their east and to the east windows and again, we're in a city that people ar
the panels down. >> commissioner sugaya. >> the project had a pre-application meeting, which is required. which included notification to the neighborhood associations for the neighborhood. >>> when did that take place? >> that could have taken place, i believe prior to the filing of the building permit application. >> so mr. nickitas, do you know what that date was? >> commissioner, that pre-dated my involvement with the project, but architect levitt sent out notices for the preapmeeting and we have the attendance from it. my understanding is that the pacific neighborhoods association received notice and choose not to attend the pre-app meeting >> thank you >> thank you. >> commissioner? >> i actually don't have a problem with this project. i don't like the way the solar panels are sitting and if we can work on that, that would be -- not too happy that we're not gaining any units, are we? but then we have to talk about making the building even taller. i don't know. >> commissioner hillis? >> i would agree. i mean, obviously you can't add a floor here in a dense neighborhood and n
. >> commissioner sugaya. >> following the logic of building an open space, if there weren't a garden there now and it was just what is being characterized as this particular open space, we would be approving apartment projects up and down the [speaker not understood] steps. >> commissioners, there is a motion to not take dr and approve. commissioner sugaya. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> [speaker not understood]. >> and commission president fong? >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 5 to 1. commissioners, that places you under item 20 for case no. 2012.1102d, 88 28th street, request for discretionary review. this is an abbreviated dr. >> good evening, planning commission, southwest [speaker not understood]. this would allow the alteration of an existing single-family residence by constructing a rear two-story horizontal addition and any partial third story [speaker not understood] middle residence with [speaker not understood] at the front and rear. the property is located at 88 28th street. the adr was filed by an abutting residence [speaker not understood]. it is still
rodgers? >> commissioner sugaya? >> thank you. this isn't on this subject, but since it's about bicycles, maybe the question is more directed towards mta or the bicycle coalition, but has there been any thinking and i don't though this. i asked this question the other day and they said there was also legislation, but is there any discussion about legislating bicycle licenses for individuals buying bicycles? when i was a young kid riding a bicycle, i had it take my bike to the police department and get a license. it was put on there with a little metal plate and clamped on there. it wasn't screwed on or anything. i guess i could have pried it off, but i was a good little kid. so is there anything going on like that, especially since there is the statistics that we were just given and visiblely on the streets a lot more bicyclists? you know the paper carries storis about the bad parts about it, that that is i'm sure in the minority, but on the other hand i don't know is there any thinking going on about licensing bikes and having a mandatory training program or something? >> we get inq
. iana, present boren, hillis, here moore hee sugaya here. first on your calendar consideration for items proposed for continuance. item 1 for 1856 pacific avenue, discretionary reviews have been canceled. under your regular calendar, item 12 case 2012.1183t and z amendments to the planning code for fillmore street there's a request from the supervisor's office to continue this item to january 10 2013. we have just learned that item 18 for case 2012.0928dd and d for 2000 20th street all drs have been withdrawn. the only action in your continuance calendar is for item 12, if you so wish. >> president fong: is there any public comment on item 12 for for continuance. >> commissioner antonini: move to continue. >> the clerk: commission antonini, aye, borden, aye, hillis, aye, moore, aye wu aye,. 7-0. consenticle considered to be retoon by the planning commission and will be acted on by a single roll call vote. there will be no discussion unless the public requests in which case it will be removed from the consen
solar panels and you have a nice, high interior space. >> commissioner sugaya, you are looking at interior height, 13. >> section you have floor to floor heights, as well as the floor dimensions. and it goes 8.1 8.1, 10 and then 13 feet is the way mine is dimensioned. >> 14 is from top of the finished floor. >> this is interior 12. if he is at 14.1. so you take it down to 13. that is fine with me, drop a foot off of there. it's not a foot, a foot and one inch, i guess and make your panels flat. that would be the motion to approve. >> so you take a foot -- say it again. >> well, the floor to floor now i understand looking at these plans is 14.1 for the top floor. and my motion is to drop that one foot, one inch to 13' total exterior floor to floor height and put only flat solar panels on the top. >> i second. >> commissioner borden? >> i would say, you know, what is really hard about this, this was a discretionary review, i would be whatever, to be honest, in terms it's a code-complying project, et cetera. but i have a harder time wrapping myself around the necessary
has put out today. >> commissioner sugaya. >> thank you. yes, in response to some mention of the imps, that's really very calorickvy -- clonky way to get at student housing. doing it in the inventory is great. [speaker not understood]. i think extending it to mid january we're going to get the same arguments that we always get, that this legislation was pushed through during the holidays and we didn't have a time to meet and therefore we want to push it into february. so, i don't think that's going to work. and then lastly, i think that in at terms of collecting information, i don't know specifically whether the provision actually calls for pinpointing locations of student housing. * but i think some way of knowing where they are is extremely important, especially given a particular institution here in the city that happens to have buildings all over downtown that are currently illegal. like to make a motion to recommend approval with modifications made by the staff and also to have the staff and the supervisors office look at where there may be conflicts or other similar provisions
, commissioner sugaya, would you be interested in another hearing possibly? [laughter] >> let me put forth -- >> really. >> let me put forth what my idea would be and let's see if it has support. and parenthetically, there are some additions of things in this. i i understand the negative declarations now would have to be appealed to us first, which was not necessarily the case. so, there's more process added in some of these. i would move that we recommend to the supervisor support, but with these modifications. longer, but clear, clear appeal periods, not to exceed three months from whatever we determine to be the date of the first complete approval document. and what i mean by that is something that you can begin to build on. if you get a plumbing permit, if you get, you know, the very first permit that you're going to be building something that really doesn't give the public much of an input as to what you're going to build. but if you have something that has the plans together and you're basically permitted to go forward with this, i'm not sure if this is an unrealistically late period
. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 6 to 1. >> the commission is going to take a short break and we will come back. >>please stand by; meeting in recess like to welcome everybody back to san francisco's planning commission hearing for november 29, 2012. i'd like to remind members investment audience to turn off any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. commissioner, we left off under your regular calendar for the benefit of the public item 15 has been continued which places you under item 16, case no. 2003.0527u, 1000 16th street (daggett park) in-kind agreement. >> good afternoon, commissioners, steve [speaker not understood], department staff. i'm please today present to you an in-kind agreement for 16th street daggett park. it is the mile steyn towards a new park in ship place square [speaker not understood]. this agreement reflects over a year in coordination and collaboration between the city, the developer and the community including the planning department's
. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. on the historic aspect, i think we should think about as a staff, i'd like to have the staff think about expanding the current -- currently we're just talking about article 10 -- corey, are you using that designation as the trigger at the moment in the plan itself? so, the plan references article 10 landmarks. >> the plan, say like the area plan, did not recognize that level of -- it did you tellxction set the exact trigger what level of historical. but that is in the planning code in terms of implementing the plan. and that was a conscious decision after looking at, depending on where we set the threshold, what would the potential outcome be if we use the same eastern neighborhoods threshold. it would be an extremely high number. >> i'm not trying to push it to eligibility, but i think if we can consider landmarks and eligible buildings properties within designated historic districts, because that's an article 10 -- that's within article 10. you can either designate landmarks individually as properties or their historic preservation commission and the board of supe
. >> commissioner sugaya. >> well, never mind. >> commissioner moore. >> i think it's an exceptional building. it shows that an architect really understands residential expectations for the new emerging district around the transit center. early on, it's quite a few years ago, we took on [speaker not understood] on residential expression. i think this building captures the nuances and the subtlies of what can be done. so, i'm really happy, whatever you want to comment on this. it is an incredibly wise choice by the developer to create a comprehensive open space design and hire the redevelopment landscape architect so it's not just an open space, but part of a network. i think it makes this project exceptional given the open spaces which are all residual little segmentments are fragmented together unless you have somebody who designed it with one stroke. we have that great opportunity and i thought the presentation was exceptional because it spoke about the different experiences, the different conditions under which these spaces all address different needs and all respond to settings of light,
carefully look at that as nothing we really want to be associated with. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, [speaker not understood], could you refresh my memory when we looked at this originally in terms of development plan, there is a street in here. >> right. >> and could you -- it doesn't seem like on the face of it that that's necessary since the intersections's just a little bit away. but this is mainly for access to the buildings? >> it's access for the buildings. also 7th and 16th don't have parking, street parking at that location. it is a very tight intersection. and, so, there is going to be this space -- the space is going to be activated with restaurants and other retail spaces. so, there's very little way to access those public uses or for people to have public use of the park. we were supportive of having this street as a way to both access the building and the uses and the park. that being said, the street is designed kind of in a [speaker not understood] style where it's flush with the right-of-way. it's very clearly -- meant to be paved and looked and designed not as a no
stronger. >> commissioner sugaya. >> we don't have a requirement for car share, do we? >> yeah we do have a requirement for car share. if it's less than 50 years you don't need a space but over 50 i think it's one and over a hundred i think it's two, so there is a minimum amount. this would basically set a maximum amount. >> but they're not in the spaces required under the code? >> no. they do not count -- your required car share spaces don't count against your max parking allotment. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> just clarification. you have of course the principally permitted residential parking that varies from project to project and gain by cu and some places there are requirements for car share but there is a maximum on the car share as it now exists in most instances? >> the maximum is -- let's say you're required to have one space and you can have that and doesn't take away from the maximum amount but if you max out the parking it can't add car share spaces so this allows to you add in addition to that and not count against you on a voluntary basis though. >>
Search Results 0 to 47 of about 48 (some duplicates have been removed)